windbg_run_to

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the core action, omitting important context like that the target process resumes, that a temporary breakpoint is set, or that execution stops on timeout. The timeout behavior is only in the schema, not the description, and there's no note about side effects like changing the program counter or triggering breakpoints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, focused sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Run' and the target condition, and the parenthetical cdb command provides useful orientation without waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple control tool with two well-documented parameters, this is minimally adequate. The description tells the agent what the tool does and the schema fills in parameter details. However, it lacks guidance on when to use it relative to other debugger control tools and does not describe behavioral side effects, making it less complete than ideal for an agent that must select correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% (both 'address' and 'timeout' have descriptions). The description adds the cdb command example and clarifies the address parameter meaning ('Address or symbol'), but this largely repeats the schema's own description. Since the schema already documents both parameters, the description adds minimal extra value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific action: 'Run until execution reaches a given address or symbol'. It identifies the target resource (an address or symbol) and the exact behavior, distinguishing it from sibling tools like windbg_continue (run freely) or windbg_step_in (single step). The inclusion of the cdb command equivalent reinforces the precise operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage: you want execution to stop at a specific code location. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using windbg_continue for undirected execution or windbg_go for simple resume. The guidance is evident from the name and description but not explicitly stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.